Early Saints on Evolution

[buffalo]

The Church has been defending herself from evolution from the beginning.

 

[EphelDuath]

The Church has been defending herself from evolution from the beginning.

Are you a sedevacanist, then? Because I take it that you’re suggesting the Church is now in heresy for allowing its faithful to believe in theistic evolution.

 

[StAnastasia]

So you don’t believe what the Church teaches? …Not only is there no proof that the sun does not move around the earth, there is actually more and more scientific evidence to show that the earth is indeed fixed, and that the sun moves around it. theories, and reject what the Church teaches is beyond me. I can’t even comprehend it.

Sorry – I have an appointment with reality!

 

[buffalo]

Are you a sedevacanist, then? Because I take it that you’re suggesting the Church is now in heresy for allowing its faithful to believe in theistic evolution.

Are you kidding me? A sedevacanist? Are you new here?

Produce for me a single Magisterial document that specifically affirms Catholics should now believe in theistic evolution. Now mind you this document has to overturn more than a few dogmas. Also we need a clear explanation of how the Holy Spirit allowed all the prior teachings and beliefs of the Church to have misguided millions of believing Catholics for so long.

 

[EphelDuath]

Produce for me a single Magisterial document that specifically affirms Catholics should now believe in theistic evolution.

Should believe in, no. Allowed to believe in, certainly: Humani Generis

“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter…”

Now mind you this document has to overturn more than a few dogmas.

Produce for me a single Magisterial document that specifically demands that Catholics take the Book of Genesis to be an immutable literalist narrative that in no way has any allegorical or figurative language, and furthermore explains why God is presented as not being omniscient in said book; and also posthumously declared St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Justin Martyr to be heretics.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry – I have an appointment with reality!

StA - why don’t you read Galileo Was Wrong? What are you afraid of?

You can get it here:

One reviewer said this:

This book exposes THE most widespread belief about reality as a myth. The only thing that could cause you to reject this (as you’ve been trained to do) is the reluctance to believe that humans, especially those we call “geniuses”, could be so mistaken on such a widespread scale. If you’re ready to see the side of things that your history books, your physics books, your mainstream science sources, your teachers and even your church is completely ignorant of (or trying to cover up), then I recommend this book.

 

[buffalo]

Should believe in, no. Allowed to believe in, certainly: Humani Generis

“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter…”

Produce for me a single Magisterial document that specifically demands that Catholics take the Book of Genesis to be an immutable literalist narrative that in no way has any allegorical or figurative language, and furthermore explains why God is presented as not being omniscient in said book; and also posthumously declared St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Justin Martyr to be heretics.

One document - it is threaded into the entire belief of the Church. There are tons of docs.

Good reading: This might do it for you.

THE DOCTRINES OF GENESIS 1-11

 **[A Compendium and Defense of Traditional Catholic Theology on Origins](http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000090351)**

Now as far a Humani Generis - It states polygenism is out. It permits study as long as the church has the final say. Read it yourself. The whole thing.

 

[EphelDuath]

One document - it is threaded into the entire belief of the Church. There are tons of docs.

So are you a sedevacanist for suggesting that the Church has fallen into heresy post-Humani Generis? If not, will you accept that the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution?

Now as far a Humani Generis - It states polygenism is out.

Yes, as do modern scientists.

 

[buffalo]

Should believe in, no. Allowed to believe in, certainly: Humani Generis

“36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter…”

Produce for me a single Magisterial document that specifically demands that Catholics take the Book of Genesis to be an immutable literalist narrative that in no way has any allegorical or figurative language, and furthermore explains why God is presented as not being omniscient in said book; and also posthumously declared St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Justin Martyr to be heretics.

We do not take a literalist reading of scripture rather a literal one - what the author intended to convey.

Almost every verse of Scripture has allegory. It is very rich indeed. However, the allegory is built on the literal as we can see here:

The senses of Scripture
115 **According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
**
[116](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/116.htm’) The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83
[117](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/117.htm’) The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses: The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87 [119](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/119.htm’) "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgment. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

 

[Seamus_L]

I guess we can safely assume that St Basil, St Gregory, St John Chrysostom and others were in no way influenced by the works of Evangelical Protestants. And yet I keep hearing accusations that Traditional Catholics are being heavily influenced by Evangelicals on this topic.

 

[EphelDuath]

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.89

And, the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution.

 

[buffalo]

So are you a sedevacanist for suggesting that the Church has fallen into heresy post-Humani Generis? If not, will you accept that the Church allows its faithful to believe in theistic evolution?

Yes, as do modern scientists.

You will have to produce more than Humani Generis, which doesn’t really say what you are claiming.

Any evolutionary theory must reconcile these points of intersection:

Adam and Eve as first parnets
All descended from them
Eve from Adam
Bodily immortality
Freedom from sickness and irregualr desire
Infused knowledge
preternatural gifts

Then answer:

Did God know what Adam would look like? Did He plan it that way?

If yes what parts of evolution does this rule out?

and check out my signature…

 

[EphelDuath]

You will have to produce more than Humani Generis, which doesn’t really say what you are claiming.

Please explain to me how the quote I just produced is misleading and/or out of context.

Any evolutionary theory must reconcile these points of intersection:

Adam and Eve as first parnets
All descended from them
Eve from Adam
Bodily immortality
Freedom from sickness and irregualr desire
Infused knowledge
preternatural gifts

Yes, and what is your point?

Did God know what Adam would look like? Did He plan it that way?

Yes.

If yes what parts of evolution does this rule out?

None.

and check out my signature…

I agree with the Pope. Hence why I do not believe in unguided atheistic evolution, but theistic evolution.

 

[StAnastasia]

StA - why don’t you read Galileo Was Wrong? What are you afraid of?

I’ve read it – it’s utter nonsense!

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

So scientists aren’t infallible, but any insane guy that quotes other crazy people who claim to represent “the scientific community” and tells you what the Church teaches is infallible?

Two of the crazy scientists he quotes are Einstien and Steven Hawkings.

Give me a break. If I wrote a book called “Gardening, and Why All Gardeners Are Child Molesters,” and the book quoted several people who claimed to be Catholic and they all said “it’s true, they are! And the Church teaches this infallibly!,” would you believe it? Obviously not. And why would you give an inch more credibility to the other insane authors?

I know how difficult it must be for people to realize that their precious scientists may have been wrong about something. Such people have no problem questioning the Church or the Bible; but if anyone casts any doubt on their infallible guides (the Atheistic scientists), they can’t handle it. Unfortunately for them, it is their infallible guides themselves who admit to not knowing if the earth moves around the sun, or if the sun moves around the earth.

I’m sorry if this reality has shaken your blind faith in the scientists.

 

[EphelDuath]

I know how difficult it must be for people to realize that their precious scientists may have been wrong about something. Such people have no problem questioning the Church or the Bible; but if anyone casts any doubt on their infallible guides (the Atheistic scientists), they can’t handle it. Unfortunately for them, it is their infallible guides themselves who admit to not knowing if the earth moves around the sun, or if the sun moves around the earth.

I’m sorry if this reality has shaken your blind faith in the scientists.

So your beliefs ares that (a) you’ve been completely enlightened to a truth that nobody else can admit, (b) that all scientists are atheists and think themselves infallible (dispute thousands of disputes in the scientific community), that (c) all scientists in the world are idiots except for a small conclave that have seen past all of that, that (d) anybody who challenges you is only doing so by asserting the authority of “scientists,” and that (e) anybody who challenges you is automatically incorrect by virtue of the fact that they’re incapable of admitting themselves wrong.

It’s impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists like yourself, because you refuse to see evidence. You automatically put yourself on a pedestal as being in a league of intelligence incomprehensible to everybody else, and anybody who thinks you’re wrong are only doing so to fulfill an agenda. So I am washing my hands from this absurdity.

 

[JackQ]

There is a difference though. Heliocentrism doesn’t contradict Scripture; evolution does.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth is the center of the universe. Try to find one verse! You can’t!

And if you quote where it talks about God stopping the sun for Joshua, then my reply will be this:
Look at Fatima’s “Miracle of the Sun.”

Actually, if you took Scripture literally you would believe that the earth was flat and supported by foundations like pillars. The sky would be a solid dome with windows through which the waters above the heavens came during the flood.

If you’re going to take the Scriptures literally, be serious about it. Don’t just pick and choose.

 

[JackQ]

StA - why don’t you read Galileo Was Wrong? What are you afraid of?

You can get it here:

One reviewer said this:

This book exposes THE most widespread belief about reality as a myth. The only thing that could cause you to reject this (as you’ve been trained to do) is the reluctance to believe that humans, especially those we call “geniuses”, could be so mistaken on such a widespread scale. If you’re ready to see the side of things that your history books, your physics books, your mainstream science sources, your teachers and even your church is completely ignorant of (or trying to cover up), then I recommend this book.

It would be fun to read it if somebody gave me the book. But I won’t pay for it. I work hard for my money.

 

[Ultima_Ratio]

So your beliefs ares that (a) you’ve been completely enlightened to a truth that nobody else can admit,

Why would you say that? Like I said in the earlier post, the book begins with about 30 pages of quotes from scientists admitting that they do not know if the earth moves around the sun, or the sun around the earth.

(b) that all scientists are atheists and think themselves infallible (dispute thousands of disputes in the scientific community), that

Certainly not all scientists are Atheists, but many of them, if not most of them, are. But regarding the infallible part, I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that non-scientists behave as if the scientists were infallible. In fact, Catholics will often reject a teaching of the Bible or the Church if a scientist claims the contrary.

(c) all scientists in the world are idiots except for a small conclave that have seen past all of that,

Who are the small conclave you refer to? Are you refering to those, such as Einstein and Steven Hawkings, who admit to not knowing if the sun moves around the earth, or the earth the sun?

that (d) anybody who challenges you is only doing so by asserting the authority of “scientists,”

Who challenges me on what? All I have implied is that it is foolishness to deny what the Church teaches simply because the person believes scientists teach the contrary.

and that (e) anybody who challenges you is automatically incorrect by virtue of the fact that they’re incapable of admitting themselves wrong.

Again, what I think doesn’t matter. It is not about what I think, but about what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that we are to interpret the Bible according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; and the unanimous consent of the Fathers is that the earth is motionless and the sun revolves around the earth.

It’s impossible to argue with conspiracy theorists like yourself, because you refuse to see evidence.

Conspiracy theorist? What evidence do I refuse to see? I think the exact contrary is the case. It is you who refuses to consider evidence. You consider the scientists to be infallible and therefore can not accept the fact that they might be mistaken. Therefore, you attack the one who attempts to get you to rethink your position - a position that I would bet you didn’t arrive at through your own astronimical studies, but rather on the word of the “infallible” scientists. In other words, you position is based solely on faith in what your gods tells you to believe. And you won’t dare to question them.

You automatically put yourself on a pedestal as being in a league of intelligence incomprehensible to everybody else, and anybody who thinks you’re wrong are only doing so to fulfill an agenda. So I am washing my hands from this absurdity.

Very interesting comment, given the fact that I have made no claims. I am not asking anyone to accept anything I have to say. I simply pointed out that the scientists themselves admit to not knowing the truth on this particular point. Interestingly, by simply making that statement - a statement that calls into question the infallibility of your gods - results in you attacking me.

I wish Catholics had as much faith in the Bible and the Church as you do in the scientists.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve read it – it’s utter nonsense!

A very precise and convincing argument.